Results 61 - 80 of 114
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Curtnsally Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | which came first the chicken or the egg | Gen 1:20 | Curtnsally | 33374 | ||
Hank Thanks for the support. The site, by the way is: www.icr.ORG For others out there, let me clarify my view of creation and evolution. Darwin in Origin of Species said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." I believe this is the best argument against the Darwinian "creation through evolution" that permeates our pop culture and correlative "pop science". People, including scientists, tend to establish their core beliefs and then use science to support them. The reality is that science is showing many organs which could not evolve into being. The eye is one most commonly considered... how could the eye begin to develop if an organism could not perceive light? And, if there was by some quirk a "spontaneous" development of an optic nerve, how would this lead to the evolutionary development of a lense? Can an organism detect the need for focus in the absense of focus? Would the lense not have to appear fully developed in order to be useful under natural selection? There are many more examples of "irreducibly complex systems" in biology. By Darwin's own measure, continuing scientific research is "breaking down" his theory of "creation by evolution". These troubling questions for the "creation through evolution" scientists are on the table, and the silence of research on this topic has been deafening. Further evidence in the fossil record shows evolution at the micro level "within species or groups" but is lacking evidence of evolution at the macro level ("pond scum to man"). Given the long history of fossils collected, there is no explanation of this short of creation at the species level. Finally, for Christians, we need to be vigilent about science, not hiding from it. God, who created all that is, is the author of all truth. Science and theology must match. When they don't, we should lead the charge to find out why, and not leave it to atheists who redefine science to support their a-theology. We have nothing to fear from science, and no reason to disavow obvious scientific truth. Our goal is to debunk faulty conclusions drawn from valid observations. Our witness to the world is to be the "Daniel" of our time... to explain truths of physical world in light of the truths of the spiritual world. Truth is truth, and God is the author of all truth. Amen! Thanks again Hank Curt |
||||||
62 | which came first the chicken or the egg | Gen 1:20 | Curtnsally | 33399 | ||
My first reaction to your question is: Oh my! There are so many!" Yet, with reflection, you ask a good question. I think we must start with a few definitions. First, I believe Scripture is primarily the history of God's relationship with man. Contained within this history is other information (like the creation account). Second, I believe that science is the study of the physical world... man's observation of things around him and subsequent conclusions about the nature of physical things. Now, let me give an example of science and Scripture matching. First, a simple one: God said, "Let there be light, and there was light". When we look around, there is light! Science and Scripture are in harmony. Science does not address the "God" issue, only the observation of light. Scripture addresses both. Nevertheless, they are in unity. A more complex example might be the flood story. There is considerable extra-Biblical evidence of a significant flood, both in the historic record as well as the world of geophysical observation and study. Often the difficulty in understanding the unity of science and Scripture lies not in the observation of data, but in the conclusions drawn from that data. The world view of the observer nearly always has a strong influence on the conclusions drawn. For example, if you look at the website of the National Center for Science Education, (http://www.natcenscied.org), their purpose is stated as follows: "We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice to keep evolution in the science classroom and "scientific creationism" out." Does this sound like science, or politics based on a particular world view? I think we as Christians must be keepers of the "whole truth", Scripture plus science... that science and theology should be able to coexist as one Truth from God. He did, after all, create the physical world. Did I answer your question? His, Curt |
||||||
63 | which came first the chicken or the egg | Gen 1:20 | Curtnsally | 33441 | ||
Let me try again, starting with a dictionary definition: Science: 1a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. The answer to your first question is no, the presence of light is not science. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of light is science. And that information agrees with Scripture. Scripture further provides that God created the light. This is not in the scientific record. Science records that (most of) the light comes from the sun, the result of nuclear fusion. This is not recorded in Scripture. Is there an intersection of data? Yes. Is there mutually exclusive information? Yes. Is either wrong? No. Do they conflict? Not to me, though others may disagree. Is this concept, in its basic form agreeable with your understanding of Scripture and science? Your second question requires a lot of text. Let me do an end-around, if I might. I attended a lecture by Roger Rusk, highly regarded prof emeritus of physics at the Univ of Tennessee (brother of former Sec State Dean Rusk, if you remember the 60's). He was a solid reformed Christian a well known scientist who had dedicated his retirement years to reconciling science and Scripture. His lecture (3 hours worth) regarded the geophysical evidence in the scientific record that supported the flood story as recorded in Scripture. It was incredible, but I could begin to do it justice here. However, based on that and other study since, I have no problem accepting the flood story as you quoted it from Scripture, and I believe that scientific evidence (insofar as we have it) supports that description. I realize that scientists do not often support Scripture with their conclusions, but this is often as much due to their world view which significantly impacts their conclusion. An example... Here is how the National Center for Science Education describes their mission: "We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice to keep evolution in the science classroom and "scientific creationism" out." (ref http://www.natcenscied.org/). This sounds a lot more political than scientific. Let me ask you a question... do I read between the lines that you don't think Scripture and science should agree? Why or why not? |
||||||
64 | which came first the chicken or the egg | Gen 1:20 | Curtnsally | 33466 | ||
. Thanks for the welcome! A brief response, as I am at work. You conclude with the question: should science and Scripture agree? I accept your observation that they often don't because of world view. I disagree that science is not about discovering truth... this in itself is a worldview question regarding the very nature of scientific study. Ie, Why do we do it? I think science "should" be about discovering truth in the physical realm (this is my world view, others may disagree). Science does not, however, address the spiritual realm, and in this regard you are right... it does not rise to the level of Scripture (or even close). BUT that doesn't mean that they should disagree. Your last comment about proving or disproving theology using science is right on. This is a mis-match of types for sure. BUT, I still hold that Scriptural truth and science should agree when they overlap, as God is the author of all. Regarding the PCUSA, I believe that our denomination (particularly in Baltimore where I live) is a mission field. But I can also tell you that, out of the 12,000 churches in the denomination, you would find theological agreement with 11,000 or more. There are a handful of liberals who make difficulties for all. Take a look at our web site (centralpc.org) and you will see we have a great little (conservative evangelical reformed) church. By the way, we are up to 1,100 hits a day on our church web site with the number one page being "How to become a Christian"! Praise God from whom all blessings flow! Blessings Curt |
||||||
65 | Double portion is really only two-thirds | 2 Kin 2:9 | Curtnsally | 33955 | ||
Hi Indiana Just a sidebar... I take it you are fellow believer in the PCUSA. Glad to know there's another one on this forum, as I am too. Actually, the vote is going quite well for evangelicals in the PCUSA right now, running about 2 to 1 in favor of leaving the "fidelity and chastity" verbage in the Book of Order. God is more mighty than the one of this world! I will also relate that I am on a search committee for a new pastor for our church, Central Pres Baltimore (www.Centralpc.org) Our pastor accepted a call to Highland Park Dallas, 3rd largest in the PCUSA... God is placing strong evangelical pastors in the "high steeple" churches of the denom... a great sign! Anyway, I have been very pleasantly surprised by the quality and number of evangelical pastors in the denom. I think we get disillusioned by all the noise coming from a very small group within the denom who are well versed at manipulating the system to their advantage. Did you know that the number of "more light" and "covenant network" churches... the openly pro gay churches... number less than 100 out of 12,000 churches in the denomination? Contrast this to the thousands of churches that have pro-actively signed on to the "Confessing Church" movement (the pro-evangelical position). In my study of the denomination, I have seen a very strong undercurrent moving back toward the authority of Scripture, the deity of Christ and the core values of the faith. While our church is often the lone voice in the very liberal Baltimore Presbytery, we did manage to get one of our elders elected to represent us at the next General Assembly. This is the first in almost 50 years. Though our church is one of the largest, we have traditionally been boxed out by the liberals. Not this time! My encouragement is growing. By the way, we anoint folks with oil at our healing service... yes, in the PCUSA! Blessings Curt |
||||||
66 | Double portion is really only two-thirds | 2 Kin 2:9 | Curtnsally | 34269 | ||
Hi Indy I do remember Walt Ungerer... and we supported his nomination. One of our members is on the Board of Presby's Pro-Life, who I believe also supported his nominaton. Anyway, I can certainly relate to your frustration... b u t, I will take humble exception to your statement "bureaucracy and the seminaries it supports seem beyond redemption". Absolutely true, they s e e m beyond redemption, but as we both know, nothing is beyond the power of God! He is sovereign, even over the PCUSA. And I know you believe this, so don't go feeling like I'm calling you out... just making a statement about the biggness of our God and the smallness of the issue from that perspective. One of the things that we do struggle with is that the evangelicals keep trickling out, albeit for absolutely good reasons, but leaving behind fewer to press the battle. I don't say this as a downer, because I respect the decision of those who feel called to move on. I do believe that the victory, at some point, will be doubly sweet just because it has been such a long uphill battle. Right now, the Covenant Network is getting it derrier handed to it with the vote in Presbyteries, and there are several overtures coming up for next GA that will try to table the issue for 10 years. This might be the factor that sends Covenant Networkers to some other venue for their agenda. I agree that many of the offenses are defrockable, if we could get the PJC to do its job. Slowly, but surely, the money is drying up and Louisville is withering under budget cuts. it is also squeezing out some of the liberal cling-ons who are not active pastors. This will ultimately, I think, give the evangelicals an opportunity to regain a voice at the national level. As I mentioned in my previous note, we have just gotten one of our elders elected as a commissioner to GA. In ultraliberal Baltimore Presbytery, this is unheard of. But one voice at a time, the denomination will be (and is being)brought back. My family is Scotch-Irish Presbyterian back to the 1600's, with many pastors along the way settling from Philadelphia all the way down the Shenandoah valley and beyond. We built churches, founded schools and sent missionaries to far off places when they really were far off. I can tell you... I'm not giving up the denomination to a bunch of liberal new-age whackos who have a social agenda and don't know Jesus... I'll stay and teach five point Calvinism to whoever walks in the door, and when I'm done, either they'll know Jesus or they'll kill me! But that's just me. (Scots always were a little militant) As always, we continue to fight the good fight, try to love everyone into the Kingdom, and try to be faithful witnesses. Blessings Curt |
||||||
67 | Is satan a spirit? | Ezek 28:14 | Curtnsally | 33216 | ||
Woah! So... who exactly is Jesus talking to in Matthew 4? Some mythological creature? A figment of His imagination? Not! Matthew 4 1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." 4 Jesus answered, "It is written: "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." 5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone." 7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: "Do not put the Lord your God to the test." 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me." 10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only." 11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him. Satan has the power to tempt us... nothing more, nothing less. God gives us power over Satan if we call upon His name. Corinthians 10:12-14 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. In the Lord's prayer... Matthew 6:13 "And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. If Satan has no power, why does Jesus encourage us to pray in this way? Do we need delivery from a myth? You are correct, we should take responsibility for our sin. We have free will to fall to Satan's temptation or to call on God for power against temptation... our responsibility is to choose wisely. |
||||||
68 | Is satan a spirit? | Ezek 28:14 | Curtnsally | 33641 | ||
The Bible tells us what, where? Please give references so we can follow your train of thought. Where does the Bible say that Satan is a figment of our imagination? Matthew 8 30 Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. 31 The demons begged Jesus, "If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs." 32 He said to them, "Go!" So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. Who was Jesus talking to? A figment of His imagination? Blessings Curt |
||||||
69 | Born on the way to destruction ? | Matt 7:13 | Curtnsally | 32261 | ||
Robert I agree with your position. You also had some fine responses from others. Its fun to consider these things in a little more depth than we normally do just in passing. Your question made me stop and think. Thanks! Blessings Curt |
||||||
70 | Born on the way to destruction ? | Matt 7:13 | Curtnsally | 32346 | ||
The root question is this... at what point is a person saved? Is it when they first trust God... or is it when they trust God always in every part of their life... or is it some other point... or is it a process over a period of time? I believe that the answer may be "all of the above"... that is, God works in different people's lives in different ways. Paul surely had a conversion experience that occured at a particular point in time. The disciples, on the other hand, seem to have a conversion experience that was much more of a process. They followed Jesus, yet often did not understand Him and even denied Him (which indicates a lack of trust). Even after the Resurrection, we have "doubting Thomas" who needed physical proof that Jesus was who He said He was, showing a lack of faith (ie, faith defined by Jesus as "believing what we have not seen"). The answer to your question is this... I don't know! But I opened this debate to make a point: I think Christians have to be careful about judging the salvation of fellow seekers, as often God takes people on a faith journey that leads a person to profess Christ, but does not include a dramatic point where the person reaches that conclusion. Just as it is difficult to tell exactly when each of the disciples made a decision to trust God, it is often difficult to know the same about the rest of us. The important issue is that we profess Christ, however God brings us to do it, and that we grow in our faith to trust God in all things. Thanks for the input! Blessings Curt |
||||||
71 | having to work the sabbath | Matt 12:1 | Curtnsally | 33886 | ||
Excellent answer, Charis! I feel compelled to add this: The fifth of the Ten Commandments is Exodus 20 8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy." This elevates the importance of maintaining the Sabbath to that of things like "you shall have no other gods before Me" or "don't murder", etc. Unfortunately, our culture has forgotten how to be holy, which makes it difficult for those who want to at least try. Blessings Curt |
||||||
72 | having to work the sabbath | Matt 12:1 | Curtnsally | 34046 | ||
There's three kinds of Protestants... those who can count and those who can't! Blessings Curt |
||||||
73 | Struggling with divorce question | Matt 19:9 | Curtnsally | 33272 | ||
I think I agree with the last post, but wanted to encourage you anyway. Here is what we know from Scripture: God hates when our lives are broken because He loves us more than we know, and doesn't want us to live in pain. God forgives us when we mess up. (1 John 1:9) God also encourages us to confess to one another and pray for one another, that we will be healed. (James 5:16) Yes, God hates divorce. But God has forgiven any transgression you have confessed, and it is not necessary to figure out the "whys and wherefors" of your situation. Accept His forgiveness, forgive yourself and know that you are loved by Him and fellow believers! In Christ Curt |
||||||
74 | Politics source? | Mark 13:28 | Curtnsally | 33268 | ||
So your answer, then, is that you have no source that the rest of us don't know about... you just inferred your thoughts from generalities and whatever seemed right to you? Curt |
||||||
75 | Politics source? | Mark 13:28 | Curtnsally | 33642 | ||
So, again, no evidence or answer... just a broad statement and a personal attack. By the way, one source you might want to check into is a dictionary. | ||||||
76 | Is BAPTISM a SYMBOL? | Mark 16:16 | Curtnsally | 31831 | ||
Agree that these answers are great. I would add this: Baptism is a sign of God's promise. There were those who were baptized by John before they knew Christ. Their faith was based on God's promise. Thus, as Christians, we also baptise our children, placing them under God's covenant (just as Jews in OT times circumcised their children to place them under the covenant of Abraham). This is a sign of God's promise. Some say that children should only be baptized when they reach an age of understanding. But God's promises have never been dependent upon our understanding. We accept this sign as of a promise of salvation through Christ, a sign that points toward Christ. As others have pointed out, it is not a substitute for Christ. His only Curt |
||||||
77 | Is BAPTISM a SYMBOL? | Mark 16:16 | Curtnsally | 32012 | ||
I have considered your position with great interest, but must say that I respectfully disagree. God's promise is not dependent upon us. It is made unilaterally. Jesus died and rose at the will of God, not because we first had faith, but because God chose to offer His gift of grace to us. Thus, baptism is a sign of God's promise to us, not a sign of our promise to God. When we repent, accept the gift of grace and receive the Holy Spirit, it is then that WE have accepted God's gift. Baptism is like the Christmas card that comes with the gift. It expresses the love of God for us in His unilateral grace. Just as salvation is not dependent upon grace plus works, neither is baptism (which points to God's grace) dependent upon our actions. A person (child) can be baptized as a sign of God's promise to us, and their will has nothing to do with that promise. Acts 16:33-34 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. |
||||||
78 | Mary is Sinless? | Luke 2:24 | Curtnsally | 31841 | ||
Romans 3:10-11 ...as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD" The only exception to this in Scripture is Christ. Curt |
||||||
79 | Plan of Salvation Scriptures? | John 3:16 | Curtnsally | 33535 | ||
Thanks! And thanks for the additions. In my view, all of Scripture is God's plan for salvation, though some Scriptures speak more directly to the point than others. I'm just glad they didn't ask for five, or I might have felt compelled to jump into Five-Point Calvinism! (much to the shagrin of all who frequent these pages) lol ! Blessings Curt |
||||||
80 | One God, many faiths? | Acts 4:12 | Curtnsally | 32302 | ||
Interestingly, I have used John 14:6 to witness many times to Muslims. The question I pose is this... If Jesus (Isa to them) was a prophet and He said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me", was He telling a falsehood or was He really the Messiah of the OT? This confounds their position that Jesus was a Muslim prophet. Of course, they try to counter that He never said that... a position difficult to defend, given the credibility of Scripture. In essense, I'm using the "Lord, Liar or Luniatic argument first postulated (I believe) by Josh McDowell. To the original question posed, I go bonkers every time I hear a talking head on the news say, "we all worship the same God". Though we all claim the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, none of the three religions believes that we worship the same God in the present tense. All believe the others have gone astray somewhere along the line. Another good Scripture: Matthew 16:13-17 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." Thanks! Curt |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |